HomeMy Public PortalAbout2021-03-11 CommentsComments received from the CRC Website Page 1
Comment 1
1 would like to see the Charter Review Committee take up the issue of WPD accountability at the
local level. There are statistics from WPD records that suggest bias exists in the citations and
arrests made in Watertown. The WPD has been approached by community members with
reasonable proposals for increased community engagement and additional anti -bias training,
only to reject these efforts. There are serious allegations of unprofessional behavior and culture
within the department. It is unacceptable to many Watertown residents that the police are
accountable to one man alone, the Town Manager. The community is wanting greater
accountability, appropriate and relevant transparency, and a reimagined budget for the police.
There are many communities around the country that have acted through their charters to
create closer oversight of local police departments.
Response:
Comment 2
1 present these thoughts/suggestions/comments in no particular order. Unfortunately, 1 have
not grouped them chronologically or by subject.
1. After we approve the revised charter, if we keep the Town Manager as an appointed
(unelected) position, we need to increase the transparency and public input into the
specifics of their job description and performance standards, and the evaluations of their
performance. One way to address this would be to do the TM's evaluations in open
meetings of the TC, not in executive session, even if the TC needs to use executive session
to discuss salary specifics for the TM.
2. The Town Council President position, as the current charter defines it, is effectively a very
weak "shadow" mayor that sort of runs interference between the public, the Town
Council, the School Committee, and the Town Manager.
3. It is not reasonable to expect the Town Council President to do all the things people are
asking of them when it is only a part time position. This leads me to think we would be
better served by a full-time person in that role = a mayor.
4. Probably after we settle the Mayor/TM debate, we also need to address the makeup of
our legislative body, the Town Council. We should discuss the ratio of representative
councilors to at -large councilors, and the boundaries/size of the Town Council Districts.
5. Right now, our 4 at -large Town Councilors all live in the same general section of
Watertown. We should consider the extra weight this gives to those districts and the
demographics in those neighborhoods.
6. We should change the composition of future Charter Review Commissions. This CRC
should address who chooses the members and what are the qualifications for
Comments received from the CRC Website Page 2
membership on future CRC's. In future, there should be at least 50% public
representation. Probably more efficient not to have every TC on future CRC's. How will
the "public" members of them be chosen?
7. More members of the CRC should have more input into the CRC meetings agendas.
8. If we keep an appointed TM, we should include requirements for them to interact with
the public more often in their job description and then evaluate their performance of
those expectations. Public forums at certain intervals. Answer correspondence and
phone calls in certain timeframes? Involvement in non -business hours civic events, other
than meetings.
9. 1 think the Town Council President has a conflict of interest in setting the agendas for,
and running the meetings of, the CRC at which the future of a form of government to
which they are central is being debated.
10. What is the current schedule for evaluating the TM's performance and renewing their
contract vis a vis the schedule for completing and voting on this charter review? We
don't want to be cornered on our choice of type of government by the existence of a
contract for the TM that take us past the implementation date of the new charter.
Response:
Comment 3
I liked the macro review of the charter process since it uncovered some finer points. One theme
that came up from certain questions and comments is that of equity, and how it still is not
garnering the attention it so needs.
1. The at -large vs. district representation discussion made me realize that the council's
composition could be an easy lever for more equitable representation.
2. The questions around COLA language, salary increases and health insurance brought this
question to mind - are there members of the council who derived a good portion of their
income/benefits from this position? Maybe this needs a deeper dive.
3. The question about hiring a Diversity Officer had been asked and has been previously.
Again, it is something that warrants serious consideration. There has not been a pro/con
discussion about this.
4. The idea about having qualifications or obtaining qualifications to hold town council
office can hinder more equitable representation. Even though it may not be the intent,
this suppresses participation as it may discourage persons without college degrees or
persons with disabilities from even entertaining the idea of running for office.
Response:
Comments received from the CRC Website Page 3
Comment 4
This set of comments about the 2/16 Charter Review Meeting is a criticism. I had no issue with
the macro review as it led to some great discussions and thoughts to consider. 1 had no issue
with the request to put comments in the Q&A instead of the Chat as a lot of Zoom calls do
something similar; it's just a facilitation mechanism. The straw poll motion at the end of the
meeting, however, was an issue because it was political gameplay. 1 understand motions can be
made by anyone at any time, and that there's process such as seconding the motion and having
discussion before a roll call is taken because we need to maintain order. However, this episode
was an unmitigated mess.
The timing of the motion caused people to context switch, whether that was the intent or not. It
became a disorientating tactic that made me feel as if we were being manipulated. One
minute, 1 am thinking "how can we keep current government form by changing representation
composition or what kinds of policy -making decisions should come under the legislative body,
and how does it affect other offices or committees in town?" The next minute, 1 am asking,
"why is this motion being made? It is to get people to tip their hands or apply pressure?" With
the exception of one vote, 1 was able to correctly guess all the votes, which was a
disappointment, and the poll did little to provide guidance to Mike.
While 1 appreciate the heads up of this being a motion at every meeting, it now adds a gaming
element to the process. Do committee members need to remember to quickly and loudly ask for
discussion before the process becomes muddled? 1 have to wonder if this is what occurs at every
town council meeting. I hope not because it would prevent any real examination of the issues or
movement forward. It can also be a motivating factor behind the desire for a mayor and weak
council.
Response:
Comment 5
Can the charter include a responsibility of Town Council to require the Town Manager to report
to TC annually on the retention rate of employees of color per department?
Response:
Comment 6
1. Do we currently have a 360 -degree peer review of our Town Manager and Department
heads? If not, this is a problem which should be fixed as soon as possible (and done by a
3rd party, reviewed by Town Manager and Town Council).
2. If we had a mayor, would we have a 360 -peer review for our Town Manager and
Department heads given the Mayor is directly accountable via the people's vote, we
would want some semblance of professionalism and accountability within our Town
Comments received from the CRC Website Page 4
Government that are not voted in (again this may help along with good management
overall).
3. Why did our Town Council have a straw vote? This seems 100% not on the up and up as
it then may influence people on the board down the road. This has drawn a dark
shadow on the town council and was done without the entire town's well-being in mind.
4. Our current Town manager has shown he is A+ for fiscal management and then "D" on
all other departments (don't take my word for it, review the 360 input...or not if there
isn't any, talk to the workers). The residents and the workers deserve well managed
professional leadership at Town Hall. In order to have this we need a change from the
status quo. The people that work for the town and the residents deserve better and the
current system is failing them.
Response:
Comment 7
Salary should be reviewed as part of the review; we have some of the most well -paid civil
servants in the Commonwealth and they are nominally responsive to citizen concerns.
Response:
Comment 8
Will these questions be posted on a website for all to read/responses or do they go into the
VOID? (will we get a response or get a response on website? Please respond to my email to let
me know one way or the other.
Response:
Comment 9
1 have shared this with the CRC members. I would appreciate this being shared with the Collins
Center experts as well. Thank you.
March 2, 2021
To CRC Committee members:
1 am writing as an interested resident to share some comments on the Charter Review process.
1 strongly believe that this review is an important opportunity for extensive public input, and is a
chance for Watertown to improve its public engagement, whatever the final decisions are about
changes to our charter. The issues involved in the Charter Review are complex, and require a
good understanding of how our government works in practice (as well as in theory) for residents
to provide useful input.
While 1 understand the desire to reach a decision early on about the meta -question (Manager vs
Mayor), 1 myself find it impossible to have an informed opinion about that question without
Comments received from the CRC Website Page 5
substantially more discussion and education about the workings of our government. 1 strongly
urge the CRC and its Communications Subcommittee to explore ways to sponsor more open and
robust debate and education opportunities about a number of questions, before expecting
informed input by most residents on that question.
This could take the form of panel discussions and debates — perhaps with the help of the library
— with extensive opportunities for the public to ask questions and make arguments. I know this
can be difficult, given time pressures, Committee members' workloads, and open meeting rules.
Perhaps education sessions conducted by the Collins Center, without input from Committee
members (to avoid deliberations) but recording so that Committee members and residents could
view after the fact. With both verbal questions and chat content preserved. Such events would
give less constrained opportunities for public input, and might also reveal factual
misunderstandings or divergent assessments about how the government currently works that
shape people's views about desirable charter changes. Clarifying facts and sharing assessments
should be done before people are expected to make decisions about what changes are needed.
In addition, 1 think it's important to start with a debate about what is and is not working well in
Watertown now, followed by an analysis about what structural factors or informal practices
contribute to the successes and failures.
Finally, 1 urge the Committee to make available to the public all the information that the
Committee is discussing before the meetings, to give time for people to be informed listeners,
and to share information on the results of the CRC poll and other relevant material. Much
progress has already been made in sharing useful information — from the Collins Center and
elsewhere — on the Committee website, which is very encouraging. Thank you.
1 will submit further comments shortly about specific topics I would welcome more education
and discussion on, regarding how the government currently works.
Thank you for considering my comments. And thank you for the time and energy the Committee
is putting into this important effort.
Response: